PDA

View Full Version : How to reform entitlements



nic34
01-29-2013, 11:37 AM
"Entitlement reform” is a hoax
No, Social Security won’t contribute to future budget deficits

By Robert Reich

....two possibilities that “entitlement reformers” rarely if ever suggest, but are the only fair alternatives: raising the ceiling on income subject to Social Security taxes (in 2013 that ceiling is $113,700), and means-testing benefits so wealthy retirees receive less. Both should be considered.

What’s left to reform? Medicare and Medicaid costs are projected to soar. But here again, look closely and you’ll see neither is really the problem.

The underlying problem is the soaring costs of health care — as evidenced by soaring premiums, co-payments, and deductibles that all of us are bearing — combined with the aging of the boomer generation.

The solution isn’t to reduce Medicare benefits. It’s for the nation to contain overall healthcare costs and get more for its healthcare dollars.

We’re already spending nearly 18 percent of our entire economy on health care (http://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/BriefingNoteUSA2012.pdf), compared to an average of 9.6 percent in all other rich countries.
Yet we’re no healthier than their citizens are. In fact, our life expectancy at birth (78.2 years) is shorter than theirs (averaging 79.5 years), and our infant mortality (6.5 deaths per 1000 live births) is higher (theirs is 4.4)
---

Healthcare costs would be further contained if Medicare and Medicaid could use their huge bargaining leverage over healthcare providers to shift away from a “fee-for-the-most-costly-service” system to a system focused on achieving healthy outcomes.

Medicare isn’t the problem. It may be the solution.

“Entitlement reform” sounds like a noble endeavor. But it has little or nothing to do with reducing future budget deficits.

Taming future deficits requires three steps having nothing to do with entitlements: Limiting the growth of overall healthcare costs, cutting our bloated military, and ending corporate welfare (tax breaks and subsidies targeted to particular firms and industries).

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/07/entitlement_reform_is_a_hoax/

Cigar
01-29-2013, 11:38 AM
I say let the GOP keep dividing voters into Takers and Makers :grin:

Brilliant move ...

KC
01-29-2013, 02:28 PM
I agree Nic. The best thing we can do to drive down the cost to taxpayers is to bring down the cost of health care. We may disagree on what would achieve that goal but in the long run, people would be better of if health care could be provided ata lower cost, and if health insurance premiums were lower.

Chris
01-29-2013, 02:49 PM
contain overall healthcare costs and get more for its healthcare dollars

That's an oxymoron. Fixing healthcare costs will result in higher demand and thus shortages. It will also result in fewer incentives to work in or for healthcare industries, thus a shortage of medical professionals and innovations.

KC
01-29-2013, 03:01 PM
That's an oxymoron. Fixing healthcare costs will result in higher demand and thus shortages. It will also result in fewer incentives to work in or for healthcare industries, thus a shortage of medical professionals and innovations.

I disagree. There are a number of things that can be done to lower health care and health insurance costs. I would include eliminating state certificate of need laws, eliminating the incentives for employer provided health care, and focusing on insuring against risk, rather than treating insurance as a payment plan for annual check ups.

You might enjoy Thomas Sowell on Risky Business (http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/08/28/risky_business/page/full/).

Chris
01-29-2013, 03:11 PM
I disagree. There are a number of things that can be done to lower health care and health insurance costs. I would include eliminating state certificate of need laws, eliminating the incentives for employer provided health care, and focusing on insuring against risk, rather than treating insurance as a payment plan for annual check ups.

You might enjoy Thomas Sowell on Risky Business (http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/08/28/risky_business/page/full/).

There is certainly much more could be done to reduce healthcare costs. I was only addressing fixing costs for that's the focus I get from the OP.

Reducing regulations, getting people to recognize costs, focusing on insurance rather than care--the three actions you mention would help.

In the durable medical durable goods area the government is only doing what I believe the OP is suggesting, and I suggest leads to failure. In Canada, they did as the OP suggests, so many mistakenly believe their healthcare is now free, they have longer wait times and doctor shortages.


Thanks for reference, I'll read that!

KC
01-29-2013, 03:15 PM
There is certainly much more could be done to reduce healthcare costs. I was only addressing fixing costs for that's the focus I get from the OP.

Reducing regulations, getting people to recognize costs, focusing on insurance rather than care--the three actions you mention would help.

In the durable medical durable goods area the government is only doing what I believe the OP is suggesting, and I suggest leads to failure. In Canada, they did as the OP suggests, so many mistakenly believe their healthcare is now free, they have longer wait times and doctor shortages.


Thanks for reference, I'll read that!

Ah, I seem to have equivocated. When you said "fixing costs" did you mean in the sense that the price system is broken and needs to be fixed or providing health treatment at a fixed rate?

Chris
01-29-2013, 03:22 PM
Ah, I seem to have equivocated. When you said "fixing costs" did you mean in the sense that the price system is broken and needs to be fixed or providing health treatment at a fixed rate?

Yes, price fixing. That is what Medicare tends to do, set prices.

I think your suggestions better than that.

Here's another, in the opposite direction of fixing prices, deregulate to free prices competitively. Pharmaceuticals are in the proctice of regional pricing, that is, they will price pharmaceuticals according to what they think a region can bear. The US can "bear" higher costs not just because we are relatively richer but because the big pharmas are protected by laws that make it all but illegal to purchase drugs from Canada or Mexico where they are priced much cheaper. Remove these regulations, they may be intended to help, but all they do is harm.

nic34
01-29-2013, 03:44 PM
The US can "bear" higher costs not just because we are relatively richer but because the big pharmas are protected by laws that make it all but illegal to purchase drugs from Canada or Mexico where they are priced much cheaper. Remove these regulations, they may be intended to help, but all they do is harm

Great idea. It's a start.

Chris
01-29-2013, 03:53 PM
Add to "Taming future deficits requires three steps having nothing to do with entitlements: Limiting the growth of overall healthcare costs, cutting our bloated military, and ending corporate welfare (tax breaks and subsidies targeted to particular firms and industries)" social welfare, iow, cut back on the welfare and warfare system and thereby reduce the debt and I'm all for it.

If you think about it much of corporate welfare is related what Smedley Butler called the warfare racket, a collusion between finance, industry and government, the military industrial complex as Eisenhower warned against. See FDR and the Collectivist Wave (http://mises.org/media/6385/FDR-and-the-Collectivist-Wave) for a good summary.


The problem I have with Reich, a social democrat, is his solutions tend toward managing business rather than managing government.

KC
01-29-2013, 04:45 PM
Yes, price fixing. That is what Medicare tends to do, set prices.

I think your suggestions better than that.

Here's another, in the opposite direction of fixing prices, deregulate to free prices competitively. Pharmaceuticals are in the proctice of regional pricing, that is, they will price pharmaceuticals according to what they think a region can bear. The US can "bear" higher costs not just because we are relatively richer but because the big pharmas are protected by laws that make it all but illegal to purchase drugs from Canada or Mexico where they are priced much cheaper. Remove these regulations, they may be intended to help, but all they do is harm.

That's another good one. If US pharma has to compete in a global market, we might expect drug prices to go down.

Paradoxically, I would argue that the entitlements that the author of the OP wants to protect keep prices of everyone else's premiums high, creating the need for wider medicare or medicaid eligibility. Fewer people would need to rely on these programs if insurance companies didn't cross subsidize medicare and medicaid beneficiaries.

nic34
01-29-2013, 04:48 PM
Then get rid of the insurance co. except for those that want premium care options.

Everyone up to 65 buys into Medicare.

KC
01-29-2013, 04:49 PM
Then get rid of the insurance co. except for those that want premium care options.

Everyone up to 65 buys into Medicare.

So change over to a single payer system, right?

Chris
01-29-2013, 04:52 PM
Socialized healthcare has not reduced prices. Nations that have adopted socialized healthcare are on the same trajectory as we are:

http://i.snag.gy/Vbzfo.jpg

nic34
01-29-2013, 05:02 PM
Doesn't look like it to me...

KC
01-29-2013, 05:05 PM
Doesn't look like it to me...

Our costs per capita are still much higher, but you can't deny that costs are increasing. I would argue that this has to do with demographic changes. Health care costs increase as societies age.

Chris
01-29-2013, 05:07 PM
What, do you see the US rising and, say, CA, falling? No, you see all of them rising in healthcare costs.

The opposite direct, that suggested by Sowell in "Risky Business", get government out of regulating it, makes more sense.

Chris
01-29-2013, 05:16 PM
Another chart for you, nic:

http://i.snag.gy/SwpBP.jpg

This is from 10 Ways to Visualize How Americans Spend Money on Health Care (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/10-ways-to-visualize-how-americans-spend-money-on-health-care/254736/) which goes on to explain that the spending is highly concentrated:

http://i.snag.gy/2LB1F.jpg

And a lot of it has to do with an aging population:

http://i.snag.gy/HnSNr.jpg

And despite Reich's claims, the Medicare/Medicaid crisis is very real:

http://i.snag.gy/zhXZa.jpg

nic34
01-29-2013, 05:21 PM
So change over to a single payer system, right?

That would be ideal, but our Medicare is not "single" payer. Medicare in fact, is a multi-payer system, where the payment structure is characterized as a system of "primary" and "secondary" payers.

I would prefer the system in Canada that is true single payer.

When a patient who lives, say, in Timmins, Ontario, shows up at the emergency room, and/or requires surgery, and/or stays a long time in a hospital bed*, or goes for a regular medical visit to a doctor working in a private practice, the patient doesn't pay anything, since all the fees have been collected in the form of taxes. No copays, no coinsurances or third-party payments to a private insurance company. Furthermore, the patient doesn't receive any statement about the medical service received. How's that for a cost cutting measure? All the paperwork travels between the government and the health care provider.

http://open.salon.com/blog/kanuk/2011/11/14/medicare_is_not_a_single-payer_system_get_it

Chris
01-29-2013, 05:24 PM
That would be ideal, but our Medicare is not "single" payer. Medicare in fact, is a multi-payer system, where the payment structure is characterized as a system of "primary" and "secondary" payers.

I would prefer the system in Canada that is true single payer.

When a patient who lives, say, in Timmins, Ontario, shows up at the emergency room, and/or requires surgery, and/or stays a long time in a hospital bed*, or goes for a regular medical visit to a doctor working in a private practice, the patient doesn't pay anything, since all the fees have been collected in the form of taxes. No copays, no coinsurances or third-party payments to a private insurance company. Furthermore, the patient doesn't receive any statement about the medical service received. How's that for a cost cutting measure? All the paperwork travels between the government and the health care provider.

http://open.salon.com/blog/kanuk/2011/11/14/medicare_is_not_a_single-payer_system_get_it



Why is government always at the center of all your solutions? How about private single payer? Competition would drive costs down, something government has no incentive to do.

KC
01-29-2013, 05:27 PM
That would be ideal, but our Medicare is not "single" payer. Medicare in fact, is a multi-payer system, where the payment structure is characterized as a system of "primary" and "secondary" payers.

I would prefer the system in Canada that is true single payer.

When a patient who lives, say, in Timmins, Ontario, shows up at the emergency room, and/or requires surgery, and/or stays a long time in a hospital bed*, or goes for a regular medical visit to a doctor working in a private practice, the patient doesn't pay anything, since all the fees have been collected in the form of taxes. No copays, no coinsurances or third-party payments to a private insurance company. Furthermore, the patient doesn't receive any statement about the medical service received. How's that for a cost cutting measure? All the paperwork travels between the government and the health care provider.

http://open.salon.com/blog/kanuk/2011/11/14/medicare_is_not_a_single-payer_system_get_it



How can the government negotiate a price with health care providers that is just both for those paying the price (the tax payers) and those providing a service (the doctors, nurses, health care providers)?

lynn
02-02-2013, 03:28 PM
Healthcare spending is completely controlled by the government with Medicare, Medicaid and Veterans care. The healthcare insurance companies have complete control of spending per their contract with all healthcare providers. The cost of healthcare or typically what you see what is billed to you or your insurance is never paid in full based on charges submitted, it is the allowable fee determined by the contract is what determines the cost of that service. More then half of what is billed by the healthcare industry is written off for every claim submitted to that healthcare insurance.

The actual picture of healthcare fees across the board if split in half would provide society the real cost of healthcare and trust me we would think the healthcare industry is not getting paid enough for their services while the insurance company would have alot of explaining to do as to why our premiums are so high when there is no justification for it.

Peter1469
02-02-2013, 04:59 PM
Healthcare spending is completely controlled by the government with Medicare, Medicaid and Veterans care. The healthcare insurance companies have complete control of spending per their contract with all healthcare providers. The cost of healthcare or typically what you see what is billed to you or your insurance is never paid in full based on charges submitted, it is the allowable fee determined by the contract is what determines the cost of that service. More then half of what is billed by the healthcare industry is written off for every claim submitted to that healthcare insurance.

The actual picture of healthcare fees across the board if split in half would provide society the real cost of healthcare and trust me we would think the healthcare industry is not getting paid enough for their services while the insurance company would have alot of explaining to do as to why our premiums are so high when there is no justification for it.

Health insurance companies are pushing up their premiums because government got involved. Look at what happened with the cost of higher education. Same same.

lynn
02-04-2013, 08:55 PM
Healthcare insurance premiums have been rising steadily for years and they have doubled in the last four years, Obamacare is their excuse but it is not a good one since it is the top 5 insurance companies that will get large sums from our government coming out of our social security and medicare that is going to pay the yearly premiums for many of these people that are below income levels.

The US spending report for 2014 thru 2016 shows a substantial increase in government spending for healthcare.

Peter1469
02-04-2013, 09:09 PM
Of course government spending on health care is going up. That is the point of Obamacare.

Mainecoons
02-05-2013, 02:04 PM
Healthcare insurance premiums have been rising steadily for years and they have doubled in the last four years, Obamacare is their excuse but it is not a good one since it is the top 5 insurance companies that will get large sums from our government coming out of our social security and medicare that is going to pay the yearly premiums for many of these people that are below income levels.

The US spending report for 2014 thru 2016 shows a substantial increase in government spending for healthcare.

Don't look now but the government loses more to Medicare/Medicaid fraud than all the profits of all the insurance companies. Which BTW are well down the list when it comes to profitability of private companies.

Sweatshop Apple, a darling of the left, makes a whole lot more on their slave and child labor.

:grin:

Dr. Who
02-05-2013, 11:14 PM
There is certainly much more could be done to reduce healthcare costs. I was only addressing fixing costs for that's the focus I get from the OP.

Reducing regulations, getting people to recognize costs, focusing on insurance rather than care--the three actions you mention would help.

In the durable medical durable goods area the government is only doing what I believe the OP is suggesting, and I suggest leads to failure. In Canada, they did as the OP suggests, so many mistakenly believe their healthcare is now free, they have longer wait times and doctor shortages.


Thanks for reference, I'll read that!

Canadian health care is by no means free. It just doesn't have the extra added problem of providing insurance companies with profits. There is a doctor shortage, because there are too few universities with medical programs, thus there are not enough doctors graduating to compensate for the number of doctors retiring.

roadmaster
02-05-2013, 11:22 PM
Well when a hospital charges $20.00 for one ibuprofen of course we can cut charges.

Dr. Who
02-05-2013, 11:25 PM
How can the government negotiate a price with health care providers that is just both for those paying the price (the tax payers) and those providing a service (the doctors, nurses, health care providers)?
Both the doctors and nurses negotiate their remuneration as separate blocks. The nurses are unionized, thus they have bargaining representatives. The doctors negotiate their fees through their respective provincial associations. Each provincial government has a budget for health care delivery. Oh, and the hospitals are all provincially run, so there is no private enterprise involved.

Dr. Who
02-05-2013, 11:29 PM
Socialized healthcare has not reduced prices. Nations that have adopted socialized healthcare are on the same trajectory as we are:

http://i.snag.gy/Vbzfo.jpg
What your graph also shows is that the US premium payer is being gouged by the insurance companies and/or hospitals in the form of profits to shareholders.

zelmo1234
02-06-2013, 03:24 AM
Doesn't look like it to me...

What you are seeing is that countries with socialized medical systems, are cutting costs by reducing and denying care to the people. in other words "death panels"

Also they do not mention that like in Canada, the best Doc's have left the public systems to work for groups of wealthy citizens. Thus the middle class and the poor are left with the worst doc's and less options.

zelmo1234
02-06-2013, 03:32 AM
That would be ideal, but our Medicare is not "single" payer. Medicare in fact, is a multi-payer system, where the payment structure is characterized as a system of "primary" and "secondary" payers.

I would prefer the system in Canada that is true single payer.

When a patient who lives, say, in Timmins, Ontario, shows up at the emergency room, and/or requires surgery, and/or stays a long time in a hospital bed*, or goes for a regular medical visit to a doctor working in a private practice, the patient doesn't pay anything, since all the fees have been collected in the form of taxes. No copays, no coinsurances or third-party payments to a private insurance company. Furthermore, the patient doesn't receive any statement about the medical service received. How's that for a cost cutting measure? All the paperwork travels between the government and the health care provider.

http://open.salon.com/blog/kanuk/2011/11/14/medicare_is_not_a_single-payer_system_get_it



http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/new-survey-finds-that-canadian-health-care-system-quality-is-declining/

Yes the Canadians are in love with there system. NOT

zelmo1234
02-06-2013, 03:41 AM
Canadian health care is by no means free. It just doesn't have the extra added problem of providing insurance companies with profits. There is a doctor shortage, because there are too few universities with medical programs, thus there are not enough doctors graduating to compensate for the number of doctors retiring.

Here in MI we have a lot of Canadian Students in our Universities, and Medical Programs, but they do not want to return home to their country because there is no money in the system as the government controls their profits, and they are unable to pay for their education.

Now that the country is allowing Private organizations, they are returning home. but these wealthy people actually pay for there healthcare twice. and that is not shown in the national costs.

zelmo1234
02-06-2013, 03:49 AM
Both the doctors and nurses negotiate their remuneration as separate blocks. The nurses are unionized, thus they have bargaining representatives. The doctors negotiate their fees through their respective provincial associations. Each provincial government has a budget for health care delivery. Oh, and the hospitals are all provincially run, so there is no private enterprise involved.

Yes and because there is no profit in hospital beds in Canada, there are too few hospitals, and to few Doctors. so the cancel and postpone needed surgeries. Thus the wealthy people can come to places like America, and get needed healthcare.

The system that you are suggesting in the system that the people are very disatisfied with

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2007/01/26/hospitals-emerg.html

zelmo1234
02-06-2013, 04:21 AM
While we all have a desire to reduce the medical cost in this nation, we can look to the countries that have socailized there medical systems. And see that the results are far from satisfactory. To say that this would not happen here is for lack of a better word, a pipedream.

So the answer does not lie in government, but the Private secter, increasing compitition and reducing costs. things like international competition for precriptions, TORT reforms, national competition for insurance, ending one size fits all insurance programs, would all help.

but reforming SS and Medicare to take them into actual retirement programs instead of gaurenteed poverty programs would be another. To look at it this way. right now workers are paying 6.5% and their employers, are paying the same.

If a worker could set aside half of this into a private account it would change retirement in america. here is how.

a worker that is 25 years old and making 30K would pay 1950 in FICA taxes Take half of that 975 and put that with his employers contributins and that would pay for those in retirement now. He invests his 975.00 in moderate growth mutual funds. that 975 at the retirement age would be? $62400 at age 67 for one year, using that average of doubleing your money ever 7 years in the stock market. allowing for no increase in wages and automatic transfer of funds, as the person nears retirment, a person that makes 30 k from 25 to age 67 would retire with about 900 thoudand in savings or about
45K per year, instead of poverty at very safe return levels, that is a person at poverty levels, and when they pass on, they leave that money to their children. so lets say that the have 3 children, the children would have a 15K per year income with out touching the balance.

You want to know how we increase wealth in the USA, we get the Goverment out of the way.

And by the way in 50 years there would be no reason to take 3/4's of the money for medicare, so that same person making 30 K and that point would have a retirement income of 90K and there 3 kids would have 30K from mom and dad, and 15K from grandma and grandpa. and US corporations would ahve all of the capital that they would ever need

Dr. Who
02-06-2013, 06:17 PM
What you are seeing is that countries with socialized medical systems, are cutting costs by reducing and denying care to the people. in other words "death panels"

Also they do not mention that like in Canada, the best Doc's have left the public systems to work for groups of wealthy citizens. Thus the middle class and the poor are left with the worst doc's and less options.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/03/opinion/oe-rachlis3

Peter1469
02-06-2013, 06:25 PM
Well when a hospital charges $20.00 for one ibuprofen of course we can cut charges.

They charge like that to make up their losses in treating the uninsured and those on medicare and Medicaid.

KC
02-06-2013, 06:29 PM
They charge like that to make up their losses in treated the uninsured and those on medicare and Medicaid.

Yes. IOW we cross subsidize them.

zelmo1234
02-06-2013, 08:00 PM
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/03/opinion/oe-rachlis3

What good does insurance do, when you have no hospitals or Doctors to see you, As you can see by the links that I posted, they have serious troubles with delays and denighed care and the costs are breaking the country.

Dr. Who
02-06-2013, 10:48 PM
That's an oxymoron. Fixing healthcare costs will result in higher demand and thus shortages. It will also result in fewer incentives to work in or for healthcare industries, thus a shortage of medical professionals and innovations.
So you're OK with the status quo?

Dr. Who
02-06-2013, 10:54 PM
While we all have a desire to reduce the medical cost in this nation, we can look to the countries that have socailized there medical systems. And see that the results are far from satisfactory. To say that this would not happen here is for lack of a better word, a pipedream.

So the answer does not lie in government, but the Private secter, increasing compitition and reducing costs. things like international competition for precriptions, TORT reforms, national competition for insurance, ending one size fits all insurance programs, would all help.

but reforming SS and Medicare to take them into actual retirement programs instead of gaurenteed poverty programs would be another. To look at it this way. right now workers are paying 6.5% and their employers, are paying the same.

If a worker could set aside half of this into a private account it would change retirement in america. here is how.

a worker that is 25 years old and making 30K would pay 1950 in FICA taxes Take half of that 975 and put that with his employers contributins and that would pay for those in retirement now. He invests his 975.00 in moderate growth mutual funds. that 975 at the retirement age would be? $62400 at age 67 for one year, using that average of doubleing your money ever 7 years in the stock market. allowing for no increase in wages and automatic transfer of funds, as the person nears retirment, a person that makes 30 k from 25 to age 67 would retire with about 900 thoudand in savings or about
45K per year, instead of poverty at very safe return levels, that is a person at poverty levels, and when they pass on, they leave that money to their children. so lets say that the have 3 children, the children would have a 15K per year income with out touching the balance.

You want to know how we increase wealth in the USA, we get the Goverment out of the way.

And by the way in 50 years there would be no reason to take 3/4's of the money for medicare, so that same person making 30 K and that point would have a retirement income of 90K and there 3 kids would have 30K from mom and dad, and 15K from grandma and grandpa. and US corporations would ahve all of the capital that they would ever need
Your investment plan if fine so long as nothing catastrophic happens with the market.

Dr. Who
02-06-2013, 11:13 PM
What good does insurance do, when you have no hospitals or Doctors to see you, As you can see by the links that I posted, they have serious troubles with delays and denighed care and the costs are breaking the country.
Don't believe everything you read. Most Canadians get decent healthcare. It is only elective procedures where there are longer wait times. On the other hand while there have been few lurid stories of people being denied medications that have not been shown to be efficacious, that is hardly different that what goes on with HMOs every day. Futhermore, unlike Canadian health care, the HMOs dictate which doctors and hospitals you can use. That does not happen in Canada.

Dr. Who
02-06-2013, 11:21 PM
Your investment plan if fine so long as nothing catastrophic happens with the market.
Just look up HMO death panels - you will find thousands of posts. Here's one.
http://www.8bitrocket.com/2011/05/07/need-a-death-panel-hmos-already-got-you-covered/

zelmo1234
02-07-2013, 04:05 AM
Your investment plan if fine so long as nothing catastrophic happens with the market.

You manage the system so that as the person ages and gets closer to retirement you move the money into safer and safer investments, so when the person is in his 50's he is well protected.

We just had the crash in 2008 the market when down to the mid 6000's many foolish people sold out, this would not be an option, in the system. I will give you an example I have a fiar amount in my 401K and as the market fell I lost dollar value but increased shares. I had almost 1/3 more shares by the time it hit bottom. now 4 years later, the market is back and I have huge gains, becasue I had more shares.

The market is still the best investment over time.

However the current SS system is Promise of Poverty, even if you put in the maximum amount like I do.

Imagine as time goes on when you do not need as much to support the old system, and 4% and then 5% and finally the 6.5% can be invested. and the employers 6.5% can go into healthcare only. You would triple those amounts, and eventually you would build the wealth of the nation.

Now this will not happen if the Democrats can stop it, because a population not dependent on the government and social programs will not vote for the democratic party. Without poverty, they have no base!

So it is up to the population a chance at building wealth, with a down side that would still be better than the current system, or gaurenteed poverty.

Plus as the wealth builds, you would ahve a huge tax base. and finally be able to pay off the national debt. making the dollar the most valuable currency in the world, and yes you buying power would be unbelieveable.

You want to get to a point that people can all do what they love, this is your answer, communism and socialism are not, they are provent ways to poverty and dispare.

zelmo1234
02-07-2013, 04:10 AM
Just look up HMO death panels - you will find thousands of posts. Here's one.
http://www.8bitrocket.com/2011/05/07/need-a-death-panel-hmos-already-got-you-covered/

The nice part is they can sue their private insurance comapny, you can't sue the government.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/06/medicare-largest-denier-of-health-care-claims/

There is the largest denier of healthcare benifits, and it is supporte by our President, for the sake of reducing Costs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rin4h4cRs6Y

So do you want the status quo!

Dr. Who
02-07-2013, 08:32 PM
You manage the system so that as the person ages and gets closer to retirement you move the money into safer and safer investments, so when the person is in his 50's he is well protected.

We just had the crash in 2008 the market when down to the mid 6000's many foolish people sold out, this would not be an option, in the system. I will give you an example I have a fiar amount in my 401K and as the market fell I lost dollar value but increased shares. I had almost 1/3 more shares by the time it hit bottom. now 4 years later, the market is back and I have huge gains, becasue I had more shares.

The market is still the best investment over time.

However the current SS system is Promise of Poverty, even if you put in the maximum amount like I do.

Imagine as time goes on when you do not need as much to support the old system, and 4% and then 5% and finally the 6.5% can be invested. and the employers 6.5% can go into healthcare only. You would triple those amounts, and eventually you would build the wealth of the nation.

Now this will not happen if the Democrats can stop it, because a population not dependent on the government and social programs will not vote for the democratic party. Without poverty, they have no base!

So it is up to the population a chance at building wealth, with a down side that would still be better than the current system, or gaurenteed poverty.

Plus as the wealth builds, you would ahve a huge tax base. and finally be able to pay off the national debt. making the dollar the most valuable currency in the world, and yes you buying power would be unbelieveable.

You want to get to a point that people can all do what they love, this is your answer, communism and socialism are not, they are provent ways to poverty and dispare.

Just an FYI as to who really supports the conservatives:

According to anAugust 1, 2011 poll, 11% of American voters identify themselves as "veryconservative", 30% as "conservative", 36% as"moderate", 15% as "liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal)",and 6% as "very liberal".[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States#cite_note-19)These percentages have been fairly constant since 1990.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States#cite_note-20)Conservatism appears to be growing stronger at the state level. The trend ismost pronounced among the "least well-off, least educated, most bluecollar, most economically hard-hit states".[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States#cite_note-21)[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States#cite_note-22)
Wikipedia

Dr. Who
02-07-2013, 08:45 PM
The nice part is they can sue their private insurance comapny, you can't sue the government.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/06/medicare-largest-denier-of-health-care-claims/

There is the largest denier of healthcare benifits, and it is supporte by our President, for the sake of reducing Costs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rin4h4cRs6Y

So do you want the status quo!
Actually you can sue the government:
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=OHIP+denial+of+benefits&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/on/onca/doc/2001/2001canlii24155/2001canlii24155.html

zelmo1234
02-07-2013, 08:47 PM
Just an FYI as to who really supports the conservatives:

According to anAugust 1, 2011 poll, 11% of American voters identify themselves as "veryconservative", 30% as "conservative", 36% as"moderate", 15% as "liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal)",and 6% as "very liberal".[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States#cite_note-19)These percentages have been fairly constant since 1990.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States#cite_note-20)Conservatism appears to be growing stronger at the state level. The trend ismost pronounced among the "least well-off, least educated, most bluecollar, most economically hard-hit states".[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States#cite_note-21)[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States#cite_note-22)
Wikipedia


I think that part of the problem with conservative is it sound pretty cruel.

Personel responsibility, is not very sexy, free stuff is. A canidate that tells people that he is going to tax the rich and use that to support programs that will take care of you. Sounds a lot better than one that says we are going to make sure that oyu deserve your benifits and are not scaming the system, are going to create a market where you can get a job and the harder you work, the better off you will be!

The difference is one dooms people to poverty and the other gives them a chance at the american dream. But it takes the right person to be able to sell these policies.

zelmo1234
02-07-2013, 08:49 PM
Actually you can sue the government:
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=OHIP+denial+of+benefits&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/on/onca/doc/2001/2001canlii24155/2001canlii24155.html

But can you sue the medicare and medicaid programs?

Peter1469
02-07-2013, 09:11 PM
I think that part of the problem with conservative is it sound pretty cruel.

Personel responsibility, is not very sexy, free stuff is. A canidate that tells people that he is going to tax the rich and use that to support programs that will take care of you. Sounds a lot better than one that says we are going to make sure that oyu deserve your benifits and are not scaming the system, are going to create a market where you can get a job and the harder you work, the better off you will be!

The difference is one dooms people to poverty and the other gives them a chance at the american dream. But it takes the right person to be able to sell these policies.

Another problem- which type of conservative?

religious right?
neocons?
the blue-blood establishment
or the fiscal conservatives?

Dr. Who
02-07-2013, 09:33 PM
Another problem- which type of conservative?

religious right?
neocons?
the blue-blood establishment
or the fiscal conservatives?
IMO, speaking in a completely non-partisan fashion, one of the reasons that the Republicans have been less successful recently is because they are so politically fragmented. When any political party stops speaking in a single voice, people view it as weakness.

Peter1469
02-07-2013, 09:37 PM
IMO, speaking in a completely non-partisan fashion, one of the reasons that the Republicans have been less successful recently is because they are so politically fragmented. When any political party stops speaking in a single voice, people view it as weakness.

The GOP is much less politically fragmented than the dem party. Not to offend any liberals around here, but the US democratic party is a loose collection of victim groups whose only connection is that whatever solution they demand is granted by the government. :wink:

Dr. Who
02-07-2013, 10:47 PM
The GOP is much less politically fragmented than the dem party. Not to offend any liberals around here, but the US democratic party is a loose collection of victim groups whose only connection is that whatever solution they demand is granted by the government. :wink:
It is not about who supports the Democrats, and I must say that there are a substantial population of non-victim urban dwellers who support the Democrats, but rather the internal party division to which I refer. There far less characterization such as those which you listed with respect to the Rebublicans among the Dems that actually have a name in politics. Apart from hard core "Socialists" and "Communists" who don't seem to be part of the Democratic party, who are the Democratic splinter groups?